ROLE OF THE MASS MEDIA IN PROMOTING ANTI-CORRUPTION CAMPAIGNS
Need help with a related project topic or New topic? Send Us Your Topic
DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL
ROLE OF THE MASS MEDIA IN PROMOTING ANTI-CORRUPTION CAMPAIGNS
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study.
Mass media disseminates information to the general public, allowing a concept to gain acceptance and spark interest. Mass media has risen to prominence in today’s globe because it serves as the nexus that regulates the whole socioeconomic and political development of every society.
Without the media, which, according to Okunna (2000), ensures a steady flow of crucial information for economic growth, national development is doomed to stall or, at most, slow down.Owolabi (2008) supported this position, stating that progressive policies and judgements are taken based on the quality of available information.
Information and understanding about people’s wishes are essential for policymakers in responding to opportunities and problems in their economic and political domains.
Media coverage of corruption can be effective in pressuring the government to act in the public’s best interests. By drawing attention to behaviour that is usually viewed as acceptable and exposing it as corrupt, media can improve public knowledge, activate anticorruption ideals, and generate public pressure against corruption (Rose-Ackerman, 1999).
The impact of media reporting on corruption might be “tangible” or “intangible” (Stapenhurst, 2000). It is tangible when a specific news story or series of stories results in a visible outcome, such as the launch of an investigation by authorities, the repeal of a law or policy that promotes corruption
the impeachment or forced resignation of a corrupt politician, the firing of an official, the initiation of judicial proceedings, the issuing of public recommendations by a watchdog body, and so on.
It is intangible when checks on corruption result from a broader social climate of increased political pluralism, enlivened public debate, and a heightened sense of accountability among politicians, public bodies, and institutions, all of which are unavoidable byproducts of a hard-hitting, independent media.
However, the political, economic, and legal climate in which media operate determines how well media can serve the duty as a watchdog on corruption.
Media freedom of expression, access to information, ownership, competition, credibility, and outreach are some of the important characteristics that have been identified as influencing the quality and efficacy of media performance on corruption (Suphachalasai, 2005).
The media can play an important role in public accountability by monitoring and investigating the acts of persons who have been given public confidence yet may be tempted to abuse their position for personal gain (Eigen, 1999). (Stapenhurst, 2000) presents an informative overview of the tangible and intangible effects that vigorous and independent journalism can have on corruption.
This list is a good tool for evaluating the role and effectiveness of media as a tool of public accountability, and it will be used throughout this study. Tangible consequences are those that may be directly ascribed to a single news article or a group of stories.
For example, the parliament or other authorities may launch investigations into allegations of corruption, censure, impeachment, or forced resignation of corrupt officers, fire public officers, initiate judicial proceedings, issue public recommendations by a watchdog body, or repeal a law or policy that creates or even contributes to corruption.
Media coverage of corruption may also contribute to shaping public hostility towards corrupt behaviour, which may result in the electoral defeat of individual politicians or an entire government, as well as public pressure to reform policies and laws that create the conditions for corrupt behaviour.
News stories evaluating the work and exposing flaws, inadequacies, and even corruption in accountability institutions such as courts, police, and anti-corruption organisations may increase public pressure to change these institutions.
All of these actions may have the effect of increasing the costs of corrupt behaviour among public officials; raising the standards of public accountability; strengthening the legitimacy of watchdog bodies and their independence from vested interests within the power structure that might otherwise interfere with their work; and encouraging witnesses of corruption to come forward.
Aggressive media coverage of corruption may also elicit preemptive responses from authorities trying to safeguard their reputation and their institution’s public image before any allegations are made.
More intangible and indirect consequences of media reporting on corruption must be considered in light of the media’s broader role in society, particularly in environments of weak political competition, such as Nigeria and many other African countries.
In these situations, vigorous and independent journalism serves as an indirect check on the kind of corruption that would otherwise thrive in the absence of political competition. Media can stimulate public debate and increase political and economic competitiveness simply by informing the public and offering a diversity of viewpoints.
Such competition may increase accountability, provide options to dealing with corrupt networks, and generate incentives for political leaders to take action against corruption.
It may also stimulate public participation and contribute to the debate by taking the lead in advocating for increased civil liberties such as freedom of expression.
By sharing knowledge about public decisions and procedures outside a small elite group of decision-makers, the media can also play a significant role in undermining a prerequisite for corruption, which is “shared knowledge” among a limited circle of beneficiaries of corruption.
Freedom of expression in the media is critical for conducting professional, effective, and ethical investigations and reporting on instances of corruption. Freedom House, which monitors the free flow of information to and from the public, measures press freedom in terms of the degree to which laws and government regulations influence news content;
the degree of political influence or control over the context of the news system; the economic influences on the media exerted by either government or private entrepreneurs; and the degree of oppression of the news media. Brunetti & Weder (2003).
Need help with a related project topic or New topic? Send Us Your Topic